So it's been now totally confirmed that Neandertals did indeed breed with humans, and that current generations are still lugging around Neandertal genes. As much as 4% of our DNA ("our" meaning Eurasians) has been contributed to by Neandertals. That's a pretty landmark conclusion.

So does this mean that Neandertals were indeed never a separate species from homo sapiens? I'm not quite sure of the implications on a taxonomical and cladistic scale. Can anyone explain?

So it's been now totally confirmed that Neandertals did indeed breed with humans, and that current generations are still lugging around Neandertal genes. As much as 4% of our DNA ("our" meaning Eurasians) has been contributed to by Neandertals. That's a pretty landmark conclusion.

So does this mean that Neandertals were indeed never a separate species from homo sapiens? I'm not quite sure of the implications on a taxonomical and cladistic scale. Can anyone explain?

Very interesting stuff. Although I am far too ignorant to knowledgably answer your questions, I would think it very significant as I've always been told that separate species aren't supposed to be able to breed fertile offspring.

What are the odds that racialist "scientists" will now start trying to prove the intellectual superiority of neanderthals? lol.

At 5/6/2010 1:54:02 PM, feverish wrote:Very interesting stuff. Although I am far too ignorant to knowledgably answer your questions, I would think it very significant as I've always been told that separate species aren't supposed to be able to breed fertile offspring.

What are the odds that racialist "scientists" will now start trying to prove the intellectual superiority of neanderthals? lol.

they fact that they died out doesn't say much for their intelligence though.

At 5/6/2010 1:54:02 PM, feverish wrote:Very interesting stuff. Although I am far too ignorant to knowledgably answer your questions, I would think it very significant as I've always been told that separate species aren't supposed to be able to breed fertile offspring.

What are the odds that racialist "scientists" will now start trying to prove the intellectual superiority of neanderthals? lol.

meh they've already reconstructed the neanderthal brain in such a way that pretty much shows that they were dumber than us... plus theres the evidence of their tools, which showed severe stagnation at a pretty primitive level. they were muscular and dumber. its actually pretty ironic given that throughout much of history africans were considered intellectually inferior... turns out europeans are the ones that are part neanderthal!

as for your question volkov, no they are not the same as us. the "species as populations capable of producing viable offspring" definition is too strict in many cases... the fact that they rarely interbred, and the fact that they split at an identifiable point in the evolutionary record is enough. there were real differences between the two groups.

that is amazing though. for the longest time the orthodoxy was that they never interbred. yay new findings!

At 5/6/2010 3:36:53 PM, belle wrote:its actually pretty ironic given that throughout much of history africans were considered intellectually inferior... turns out europeans are the ones that are part neanderthal!

At 5/6/2010 9:02:19 PM, lastrequest691 wrote:Even a 12 year old nerdy kid knows that Homo Sapiens and Neanderthels are subspecies of the Mother Species - Homo

Modern Human Beings- Homo sapiensNeanderthels- Homo neanderthalensis

Homo isn't a species. Homo is a genus.

However, it is actually true that they are sometimes classified as a subspecies of our "mother species," Homo Sapiens.

We are Homo Sapiens Sapiens, and they are sometimes classified as Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis. Usually they are considered their own species, though, since they split so long ago and were a fairly reproductively separated group. [1]

[1] "Homo neanderthalensis, which became extinct 30,000 years ago, has sometimes been classified as a subspecies, 'Homo sapiens neanderthalensis', but genetic studies now suggest a divergence of the Neanderthal species from Homo sapiens about 500,000 years ago."http://en.wikipedia.org...

well.... i guess human women are so easy, even a caveman can do 'em ;D

Body's breaking, drive me crazy
This is not your place
No, this is not your playground it's my heart
We were stupid, we got caught
Nothing matters anymore
So what? Here we are Juggernaut
- Coheed & Cambria

NOTE: WHEN SHOOTING A MIME, DO NOT USE A SILENCER OR HIS FRIENDS WILL HEAR YOU.

At 5/6/2010 1:33:54 PM, Volkov wrote:As much as 4% of our DNA ("our" meaning Eurasians) has been contributed to by Neandertals. That's a pretty landmark conclusion.

No, not really. But that's probably only because I already learned it three months ago.

So does this mean that Neandertals were indeed never a separate species from homo sapiens? I'm not quite sure of the implications on a taxonomical and cladistic scale. Can anyone explain?

At least according to what I've read (though most stuff on Wiki contradicts it) from my Ecology class, the Neanderthals were just a subspecies of Homo Sapiens. When most people talk about "Homo Sapiens", they usually are referring to Cro Magnons (http://en.wikipedia.org...), who are simply more similar looking to us. If you look at the Cro-Magnon article, the name of Cro Magnons are Homo Sapiens Sapiens - it's doubled. The Neanderthals probably have Homo Sapiens Somethingelse, but I can't say, because Wiki categorizes them as a different species.

: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?

So it's been now totally confirmed that Neandertals did indeed breed with humans, and that current generations are still lugging around Neandertal genes. As much as 4% of our DNA ("our" meaning Eurasians) has been contributed to by Neandertals. That's a pretty landmark conclusion.

So does this mean that Neandertals were indeed never a separate species from homo sapiens? I'm not quite sure of the implications on a taxonomical and cladistic scale. Can anyone explain?

Freakin SWEET!

heh! I'm a Neanderthal!

"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."

So it's been now totally confirmed that Neandertals did indeed breed with humans, and that current generations are still lugging around Neandertal genes. As much as 4% of our DNA ("our" meaning Eurasians) has been contributed to by Neandertals. That's a pretty landmark conclusion.

So does this mean that Neandertals were indeed never a separate species from homo sapiens? I'm not quite sure of the implications on a taxonomical and cladistic scale. Can anyone explain?

My understanding of the dividing line between species was the inability for two different groups to reproduce. If Neandertals did indeed breed with us, and at least with a good portion of Eurasian ancestors, would it not mean that they're what some have thought all along, and simply a sub-species of Homo sapiens? Or, like belle said, is there just not enough of a distinction or definition of the difference between species to really pin it down? It's also why I asked for cladistic point of views, since I know the taxonomical classification can be a little strange.

@Rezz, your ecology class is going off on a weird tangent. Most scholars believe the Neandertals were a separate species, rather than a sub-set of Homo sapiens. However, it's still a very disputed point. I'm surprised your class didn't note that.